A Comparison of OPO Pulsatile Machine Preservation Practices and Results

Journal of Transplant Coordination, Vol. 9, Number 2, June 1999 proportions, it becomes apparent that the traditional brain-dead donor pool cannot supply enough organs to satisfy the need. Washington Hospital Center, as well as other transplant centers, has used non–heartbeating cadaver donors and the less than optimal brain-dead donors to answer this need.1,4 The major concern with these types of donors is organ quality.3,4 Physiologic damage sustained during warm ischemia time can cause an unacceptably high rate of delayed graft function.1,3-6 A UCLA multicenter study demonstrated that perfused kidneys had immediate function at a much greater rate than those preserved with ice storage.1 Furthermore, machine preservation appears to benefit those kidneys that have sustained substantial ischemic damage.2 Koyama et al1 concluded that pulsatile perfusion is cost-effective because it permits reliable kidney evaluation and dramatically increases immediate graft function, as well as graft survival rates. A comparison of OPO pulsatile machine preservation practices and results